Treespider's CHS - China Revisited - 1st look

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Other than Ulithi and Truk are there any other ports in CHS 2.08 that appear "out of sorts" I just did a very quick and dirty review of some of the port sizes in CHS and they by and large appear ok. Most ports were downgraded in earlier versions of CHS.

Ports are easier to evaluate than airbase sites. I believe that information may be readily available.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: veji1

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...

Truk had been developed into a major fleet base, able to handle the entire IJN. It had an enormous lagoon and lots of land. Only four mineable entrances, and the Japanese fleet could anchor out of range of naval gunfire. Treat it as a 9(6) in 1941.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: treespider

Other than Ulithi and Truk are there any other ports in CHS 2.08 that appear "out of sorts" I just did a very quick and dirty review of some of the port sizes in CHS and they by and large appear ok. Most ports were downgraded in earlier versions of CHS.

Ports are easier to evaluate than airbase sites. I believe that information may be readily available.

And they apparently already have been in 2.08. I was given some documentation earlier indicating that most but not all of the ports had been looked at...and my quick glance through them seems to be that they are accurate in CHS 2.08.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: veji1

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...

Truk had been developed into a major fleet base, able to handle the entire IJN. It had an enormous lagoon and lots of land. Only four mineable entrances, and the Japanese fleet could anchor out of range of naval gunfire. Treat it as a 9(6) in 1941.

Correct. It also was the keystone of Japan's PTO strategy: the heart of the "interior lines of communication" naval wise.
It was long assumed in the Manhattan Project it would be the first target of the atomic bomb. But the bomb took too long to build, and Japan lost its fleet as a functional threat - at least after Leyte Gulf. So it no longer was germane as a target (unless we wanted a demonstration). Truk itself is an atol - but a gigantic one - with its own local ethnic group (the "Trukese") - and a micro economy in its own right. In bast terms Herwin is right - it is a 9 (6) - or should be (never looked at it - thought it was obvious).

EDIT: Turns out Truk is an 8 (6) - in stock - CHS and RHS - and so probably most everything based on any of them. That isn't horribly unreasonable either.

[treespider]

[font=georgia]World War II Resources of Truk [/font]
[font=georgia]The great lagoon of Truk provides one of the best natural anchorages in the world. The Japanese military realized this when Truk first came under their control in 1914, but made no attempt to build any fortifications there for quite some time. It was not until the 1930's that Imperial Japan began to build the large navy which would eventually use Truk Lagoon as its most important advanced base. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Due to its great natural advantages Truk Lagoon was easily developed into a large naval base. The barrier reef encompasses a protective lagoon approximately 140 miles in circumference with only a few navigable breaks in the reef to allow ships to enter. The lagoon was large enough to easily accommodate the entire Japanese Imperial Fleet. It was easily defended; ships attempting to attack the fleet by entering the lagoon would have to enter through one or more of the four main passes which could be easily defended by fortifying the small islands and islets located along the reef. The protecting barrier reef allowed ships anchored within the lagoon to be outside the range of all but the guns of large battleships. Even those ships within range could be protected by the high islands. Truk Lagoon, prior to February 1944, was perceived by the U. S. as an impregnable fortress. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Truk's development as a naval base did not reach its peak until 1943. It was not until January 1944 that the Japanese Army began preparations for an expected invasion by the U. S. By that time the military installations spread over the larger islands of the lagoon consisted briefly of the following facilities and defensive fortifications: [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Dubon: ship repair, docks, seaplane base, submarine base, fleet headquarters, a 2,500-ton floating drydock, torpedo storage dumps, torpedo boat base, hospital, aviation repair and supply station, fuel storage, coastal communication center, coastal defense, and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Moen: bomber field, seaplane and fighter base, torpedo storage, torpedo boat base, radio communications center, and coastal and anti-aircraft batteries. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Fefan: supply center, piers, warehouses, barracks, ammunition dumps, and dual-purpose guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Etan: fighter base, hangars, administration building, barracks, dual-purpose guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Param: bomber base, coastal defense and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Tol: torpedo boat base, coastal defense and anti-aircraft guns. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Ulalu: radio direction finder station, barracks, and warehouses. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Udot Island: Coastal and anti-aircraft defenses. [/font]
[font="georgia, times new roman, times, serif"]Work on these fortifications had not been completed when the U. S. carrier forces attacked Truk in February 1944. [/font]
[font=georgia][/font] 
[font=georgia][/font] 
[font=georgia]In game terms perhaps a 7(6) at start or a 7(5). [/font]

[treespider]

In my version of the game the Ki-43-I will have sharper teeth!!!

The Ki-43-1a was initially fitted with a fixed-pitch, two-bladed wooden propeller which was soon replaced with a two-pitch metal unit. The armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper cowling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. There were two attachment points for fuel tanks underneath the wing center section.

The first Ki-43-Ia fighters were delivered to the 59th and 64th Sentais in October of 1941, only eight months after production had begun at Ota. They were transferred to China shortly before the war with America broke out.

The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun. The Ki-43-Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series.

In CHS 2.08 players are provided with the K43-Ib the up-gunned version of the Ki-43-1a. However both are probaly not accurate for game purposes as the major production variant was the -Ic. So the Oscar gets two 12.7mm Type 1 MG.

[treespider]

I am planning on dropping the Liz from the rolls in favor of a production variant of the KI-44.
 
The Ki-44-IB. Approx. 40 were built. The unit in China with the Tojo would be assigned this version. Low production numbers would allow the unit to receive replacements. It would be slightly slower and not have the legs of the current -IIb.

[Dili]

A small note. Bomber bomb load doesnt means that the takeoff weight/runway is less/short some had fuel tank bags to put in bomb bay.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

In my version of the game the Ki-43-I will have sharper teeth!!!

The Ki-43-1a was initially fitted with a fixed-pitch, two-bladed wooden propeller which was soon replaced with a two-pitch metal unit. The armament consisted of two 7.7-mm Type 89 machine guns mounted in the upper cowling and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. There were two attachment points for fuel tanks underneath the wing center section.

The first Ki-43-Ia fighters were delivered to the 59th and 64th Sentais in October of 1941, only eight months after production had begun at Ota. They were transferred to China shortly before the war with America broke out.

The next version was the Ki-43-Ib which differed from the Ia in having a heavier armament in which one of the Type 89 machine guns was replaced by a 12.7-mm Type 1 (Ho-103) machine gun. The Ki-43-Ic which followed it had two 12.7-mm Type 1 machine guns, and was the major production variant of the Model 1 series.

In CHS 2.08 players are provided with the K43-Ib the up-gunned version of the Ki-43-1a. However both are probaly not accurate for game purposes as the major production variant was the -Ic. So the Oscar gets two 12.7mm Type 1 MG.

In practical terms, the main production version was the Ib. This is because, aside from being produced as such, almost all the Ic in the field were backfitted to Ib standard. The .30 was far more effective than the particular .50 being used - in the context of the peculiar mounting situation where the weapons were fired THROUGH the propeller. The ROF of the .30 was easily synchronized, but the .50 wasn't, and had to be slowed so much it greatly reduced the practical firepower. If you combint the number of Ib with the number of Ic converted to Ib standard, you have the vast majority of all Oscar Is.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In practical terms, the main production version was the Ib. This is because, aside from being produced as such, almost all the Ic in the field were backfitted to Ib standard. The .30 was far more effective than the particular .50 being used - in the context of the peculiar mounting situation where the weapons were fired THROUGH the propeller. The ROF of the .30 was easily synchronized, but the .50 wasn't, and had to be slowed so much it greatly reduced the practical firepower. If you combint the number of Ib with the number of Ic converted to Ib standard, you have the vast majority of all Oscar Is.

According to Francillon all production variants of the Ki-43 series from the -1c and until the -IIIb mounted the dual 12.7mm Type 1 MG. Evidently the designers didn't see a problem.


EDIT: In furthering the reasearch I came across this website:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdun ... i43arm.htm Which discusses the armament...the author concludes it was mixed.

[Nikademus]

There's enough source material to support the change. I did so for my mod (Ic version @ game start) The Oscar needs the two 12.7's to be more competitive under the game engine.

[el cid again]

While the primary actual I in the field was de facto the Ib, RHS also uses the Ic armament - because Nik is right: in game terms the penalty for the .50 does not exist - and the .30 armed version is nothing like as effective as even the Ia was IRL. The Oscar was "almost as big a surprise as the Zero" - and in game terms using the Ic armament is a technical trick to achieve something close to that. It is still light enough not to be impressive later in the war. So is the lack of armor. But in 1941 it is a fine plane.

[treespider]

After too many late nights and a word from Andrew... I've gone back and readjusted my endurance values. I took the original CHS values for Endurance and placed them back into the game. However I multiplied the endurance value by 1.15 to account for the fact that the new range that is calculated by the code is in nauts, so to get it to correspond to the map I need to multiply by 1.15 to make the nauts statute miles. In any event some of the Endurance values in CHS 2.08 are wrong so I will need to revaluate them anyway. The A6M3a should have about 100 more statute miles range than the A6M2. In addition I will have to go back and re-evaluate the Drop Tanks to account for the range that they add.

The game however still thinks the speed is mph and not nauts so the affect should be interesting because the Speed differentials have now been compressed. Whereas previously if the speed differential was 100mph it will now be 100/1.15=86.9. Not sure if the code will care.

[el cid again]

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

Nope you have to multiply ENDURANCE by 1.15.

I have already converted speeds to knots which essentially means dividing the existing speed by 1.15 to get the knot value.

Since I am dividing speed by 1.15 I have to multiply endurance by the same value to maintain the range in statute mile format.

[JeffroK]

Mentioned a few hundred posts back, the difference in the ability to build Airbases between Japanese & Allied engineers.
 
Can you lower the number of devices in a Japanese engineer unit so that they dont build as quickly?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Except you have it backwards! IF the game map is done in statute miles - and it is - and if you want planes to move with the same penalty as ships do (pretending the hexes are in nautical miles when they are not) - you have to DIVIDE by 1.15. You are still giving the planes too much range - not just relative to the ships - but now also with respect to real ranges!

Another approach is just to reduce the speeds of the planes to knots - and then endurance increases by your 1.15 - and everything works out perfectly.

Joe Wilkerson and I - who discovered this discrepency - argued passionately for converting the maps to nautical miles. I think it will happen some day. Hasn't happened yet. If it does - look for plane speeds to reduce in this way - to knots.

Nope you have to multiply ENDURANCE by 1.15.

I have already converted speeds to knots which essentially means dividing the existing speed by 1.15 to get the knot value.

Since I am dividing speed by 1.15 I have to multiply endurance by the same value to maintain the range in statute mile format.

This is correct: the item quoted didn't say you had gone over to knots - something I proposed a year ago and got a lot of grief about. In this case - you are moving planes in sync with ships - and everyone has a 15% penalty except land units (a different story we cannot change). The problem is - the map distances are still in statute miles - so in effect you have "grown" the globe by 15% - except for land units. It is possible to change the map - but it is an awful job.

A side effect is you can use the new data to reduce maneuverability for aircraft - which factor is related to speed. Wether or not you do, code uses both kinds of speed - and lower numbers are going to reduce air air lethality of fighter planes.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Mentioned a few hundred posts back, the difference in the ability to build Airbases between Japanese & Allied engineers.

Can you lower the number of devices in a Japanese engineer unit so that they dont build as quickly?

Sure you can. It is not a good idea, but you can do so.

Know, however, that CODE gives the Japanese a lower rate for lots of things like this - construction, ASW, name it.

Also know that the real penalty is well reflected in the data - at least if you use an OB based on actual data. As far as I know Matrix used - and CHS kept - a principle "no engineer vehicles in Japanese engineer units" as a sort of trick to get where you want to go. I did an actual review of these units - and found that this isn't their real problem exactly.
Japanese engineer units ALWAYS have SOME engineer vehicles - but they are fewer than US units - and they differ between types of engineer units. Thus a construction battalion is very vehicle light - on top of which the Army/Air Force versions also are not even Japanese in the usual sense. [Composed mainly of Koreans, these were often the only "troops" to surrender in a Pacific Island battle. I give them special officers, and a special national classification to involk a bad combat modifier.] A "road construction regiment" is better in two senses - more vehicles - all Japanese.
An "independent engineer regiment" is better still (and so would a RR regiment- but I have been persuaded not to let you have any) - vehicle wise. But ALL these units suffer from a lack of support. Make that gross lack of support. This is inherent in their design philosophy (OB wise). They are INTENDED to draw "support" from regular units, civilians, prisoners, something else. So I made ALL these units grossly weak support wise - and ONLY if they are colocated with support will they build/repair at the rate their inherant expertise/mechanization permits - and then only at the (lower) Japanese rate.

There is a more general problem which may be confusing you: construction in the game is too fast for everyone. This is both hard code and because locations are not defined with enough 0 level airfields - which code makes very hard to change - as it should. While I have taken out a lot of "dots" - and defined infrastructure missing that matters in their slots - in that great "desert" of the South and Central Pacific - I have often reduced airfield sizes. We also have been reducing some in the Indies - Borneo is the latest place. The lower ratings will help slow down the rate at which bases get bigger. But a problem remains: players vs AI will ALWAYS force EVERY base building at the rate supplies permit - AI cannot be set otherwise - a very bad issue (for lots of reasons - not just base size - it means AI lacks the supplies it needs for operations too). But these issues are not related to Japan per se.

[treespider]

These are the preliminary values for the Japanese Aircraft converted to nauts. Data for cruise speed and range is 95% from Francillon...if he had it I used it. MxSpd was generated by simply dividng CHS 2.08 values by 1.15. A review of Max Speed will also be done in the future. These values are pre-Drop Tank....which brings up the next discussion...how to implement the drop tanks... lets look at the A6M2. Francillon rates its Max range as 1675 nautical miles. Because I am using nauts as my speed component of the range calculation I have to multiply the range by 1.15 to compensate for the map being in Statute miles. So the formula I used was (Range in Nautsx1.15x60) / Speed in Nauts. In the case of the A6M2 - (1675x1.15x60)/180= 642.

In any event Larry Bond rates the A6M2 with a cruising range of 1010 nautical miles (Same as francillon). Looking at our A6m2 in the game has an extended radius of 10 hexes= 600 statute miles / 1.15 = 521 nautical milesx 2 = 1042 nautical miles...very similar and our numbers are based on Francillon. Now where Bond differs is in the drop tank - He says that a 330L DT on the A6M2 will add 465nm to the range so a total of 1475 nm ....200 nm shy of Francillons max of 1675 (EDIT: In all other makes of the A6M Bond indicates a range add of 539nm which would total 1549nm - 125nm shy of Francillon's max) What to do about DT's...???

Code: Select all

 Name........	MxSpd	CrSpd	End	MaxHex	Ext	Nrml
 A5M4 Claude	236	216	207	12	4	3
 A6M2-N Rufe	234	191	347	18	6	4
 A6M2 Zero.	288	180	642	32	10	8
 A6M3 Zeke..	293	190	466	24	8	6
 A6M5 Zeke..	305	200	357	19	6	4
 A6M8 Zeke..	309	200	357	19	6	4
 A7M2 Reppu	339	225	184	11	3	2
 N1K Rex....	260	200	310	17	5	4
 N1K1-J George	326	200	474	26	8	6
 J2M Jack....	343	190	372	19	6	4
 J7W Shinden	405	228	231	14	4	3
 J1N1-S Irving	273	180	782	39	13	9
 C6N1-S Myrt	329	210	941	54	18	13
 D7A Grace.	306	217	521	31	10	7
 D1A Susie..	166	120	287	9	3	2
 D3A2 Val...	217	160	314	13	4	3
 D4Y Judy...	298	230	630	40	13	10
 A6M7 Zeke..	302	190	297	15	5	3
 A6M3a Zeke	292	190	644	33	11	8
 B4Y Jean...	150	108	543	16	5	4
 B5N2 Kate.	204	140	529	20	6	5
 B6N2 Jill....	260	180	630	31	10	7
 B7A Grace.	306	217	521	31	10	7
 M6A1 Seiran	256	160	276	12	4	3
 G3M Nell....	201	160	1019	45	15	11
 G4M1 Betty	231	170	1321	62	20	15
 G4M2 Betty	236	170	1327	62	20	15
 G4M2e Betty	253	113	1331	41	13	10
 P1Y Frances	295	200	1000	55	18	13
 N1K2-J George	339	200	446	24	8	6
 J1N1-R Irving	286	150	1118	46	15	11
 C5M Babs..	259	129	320	11	3	2
 C6N Myrt...	329	210	941	54	18	13
 G5N Liz......	226	200	793	44	14	11
 H6K4 Mavis	207	120	1887	62	20	15
 H8K Emily..	252	160	1665	74	24	18
 Ki-83.........	380	243	537	36	12	9
 H6K2-L Mavis	207	130	1592	57	19	14
 L1N1 Thora	194	167	267	12	4	3
 L3Y Tina....	204	162	1435	64	21	16
 E14Y1 Glen	133	90	364	9	3	2
 E8N Dave..	161	100	334	9	3	2
 F1M2 Pete..	200	113	244	7	2	1
 E13A1 Jake	203	130	598	21	7	5
 E7K2 Alf....	129	100	759	21	7	5
 Ki-61-II KAIb	329	216	276	16	5	4
 Ki-27 Nate	253	188	338	17	5	4
 Ki-43-Ib Oscar	267	173	258	12	4	3
 Ki-43-IIa Oscar	286	237	503	33	11	8
 Ki-44-IIb Tojo	326	216	293	17	5	4
 Ki-45 KAIa Nick	295	201	419	23	7	5
 Ki-45 KAIb Nick	295	203	414	23	7	5
 Ki-45 KAIc Nick	291	203	367	20	6	5
 Ki-46-III KAI	330	243	345	23	7	5
 K-61-Ib Tony	320	216	190	11	3	2
 Ki-84-Ia Frank	354	240	336	22	7	5
 Ki-84-Ic Frank	337	240	336	22	7	5
 Ki-100 Tony	323	216	379	22	7	5
 Ki-102a Randy	326	217	343	20	6	5
 L2D2 Tabby	191	140	867	33	11	8
 Ki-30 Ann..	228	205	309	17	5	4
 Ki-32 Mary.	228	161	453	20	6	5
 Ki-51 Sonia	228	164	241	10	3	2
 Ki-21-II Sally	262	205	491	27	9	6
 Ki-48-I Lily.	259	188	475	24	8	6
 Ki-49 Helen	266	188	585	30	10	7
 Ki-67 Peggy	290	216	655	39	13	9
 Ki-46-III Dinah	340	243	613	41	13	10
 Ki-46-II Dinah	326	216	426	25	8	6
 Ki-15 Babs.	259	173	517	24	8	6
 Ki-36 Ida...	187	127	362	12	4	3
 Ki-57-II Topsy	253	173	646	31	10	7
 Ki-54c Hickory	203	129	277	9	3	2
 Ki-48-II Lily	273	195	458	24	8	6
 Ki-102b Randy	313	187	398	20	6	5
 

[treespider]

So to implement Drop tanks will take a little work...
 
1. Identify which planes used them and what size they used.
2. Identify the "effect" of the drop tanks.
3. If the games effects values are accurate...then subtract the effect rating of the drop tank carried from the Endurance Value of the plane.
 
I may have to adjust drop tank effects by multiplying by 1.15 to account for the fact that my speeds will be in knots.
 
So looking at the A6M2 the effect of the 330L drop tank is 87, which would be added to endurance. If I mulitply 87 x1.15 = 100. Then subtract the 100 from the END of 642 will give the A6M2 a new Endurance of 542. Resulting in values of 27 hexes max range , 9 hexes extended, 6 hexes normal without Drop Tank.
 
So presuming the code knows when the plane should carry a drop tank or not the Zero should carry a drop tank to travel 7-10 hexes and will not carry one with less than 6 hexes to travel.